Men catching HIV from women in Thailand

[2009]

22 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

multiplying transmission odds against prevalence is worthless.

They are totally different statistic cohorts.

 

Transmission odds are actual exposure risk per encounter 

Prevalence odds are per sexual partner , not taking into account the number of sexual acts or the hiv status.

Tell that to the experts who use that exact formula when doing a risk assessment. This is documented.

 

Multiplying the transmission rate with the prevalence rate gives you the overall risk figure (for that one encounter).

 

Prevalence odds are altered depending on the person.

 

You would apply a different prevalence odd to a sex worker who works on the street because it is known that they have higher rates.

 

Similarly, someone from Sub-Saharan Africa where there is a greater prevalence rate, or with injectable drug users and men who have sex with men where there is also a greater prevalence.

 

Is it a perfect fomula? No, of course not. But it is the only data available to perform a risk assessment with (and yes, doctors perform risk assessments using this data).

 

For example, if you had sex with a random female in London, a doctor might not recommend testing (though they would probably do it because the patient wants it).

 

But if you did the same thing with a random in the homosexual community or in certain parts of Africa, the doctor would insist on testing due to it being of higher risk.

Edited August 31, 2021 by 2009

[cleopatra2]

15 minutes ago, 2009 said:

Tell that to the experts who use that exact formula when doing a risk assessment. This is documented.

 

Multiplying the transmission rate with the prevalence rate gives you the overall risk figure (for that one encounter).

 

Prevalence odds are altered depending on the person.

 

You would apply a different prevalence odd to a sex worker who works on the street because it is known that they have higher rates.

 

Similarly, someone from Sub-Saharan Africa where there is a greater prevalence rate, or with injectable drug users and men who have sex with men where there is also a greater prevalence.

 

Is it a perfect fomula? No, of course not. But it is the only data available to perform a risk assessment with (and yes, doctors perform risk assessments using this data).

 

For example, if you had sex with a random female in London, a doctor might not recommend testing (though they would probably do it because the patient wants it).

 

But if you did the same thing with a random in the homosexual community or in certain parts of Africa, the doctor would insist on testing due to it being of higher risk.

Simple logic tells you the formula is erroneous.

 

If your first encounter is with an hiv positive person then  the exposure risk exist . No number of further encounters with hiv negative persons will reduce that risk.

As explained the error occurs because the risks groups are not the same.

 

 

Edited August 31, 2021 by cleopatra2

[2009]

58 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

 

 

58 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Simple logic tells you the formula is erroneous.

 

If your first encounter is with an hiv positive person then  the exposure risk exist . No number of further encounters with hiv negative persons will reduce that risk.

As explained the error occurs because the risks groups are not the same.

 

 

 

Okay, let's look at an example.

 

If the prevalence rate in polygamous American heterosexual females is 1 in 1000. And transmission rate from female to male is 1 in 1000 per episode of sex. Then, the overall risk would be 1 in 1,000,000 for that single encounter.

 

If the prevalence rate was 1 in 100, say, for a homosexual American male. And the transmission rate from recieving anal was, say, 1 in 100. Then the overall risk would be 1 in 10,000 for that single encounter (to the receiving partner.)

 

The more times you do it the worse your odds are, obviously.

 

The part you are not getting is: these risk assessments are for when we don't know a person is negative.

 

So, the thing you said about, "No further number of encounters with negative people will affect that" .

 

You are right! Obviously, because we know their status is negative so they don't even come into the equation. You don't apply this equation to people who are known to be negative. The chances they have it is zero.

Edited August 31, 2021 by 2009

[3NUMBAS]

i bonked a woman bareback who later died from aids and after a few months worry i found i was ok and am still ok 15 yrs later.. she was a teacher in nong khai named mrs daeng married to a bloke who died also

[2009]

And in case anyone is interested, some typical statistics on new infection demographics for the average industrialized country (give or take a few percent):

 

60% -- men who have sex with men

 

20% -- heterosexual sex (female)

 

10% -- heterosexual sex (male)

 

9% -- injectable drug use

 

1% -- other

 

I think this is revelant to the OP's question.

 

And since the question is specifically about men getting it from women: there were

5400 total new infections in Thailand in 2019, so if about 10% of those were in heterosexual males, then we could say there were 540 new infections in heterosexual males in that year in Thailand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by 2009

[RJRS1301]

12 minutes ago, 2009 said:

And in case anyone is interested, some typical statistics on new infection demographics for the average industrialized country (give or take a few percent):

 

60% -- men who have sex with men

 

20% -- heterosexual sex (female)

 

10% -- heterosexual sex (male)

 

9% -- injectable drug use

 

1% -- other

 

I think this is revelant to the OP's question.

 

And since the question is specifically about men getting it from women: there were

5400 total new infections in Thailand in 2019, so if about 10% of those were in heterosexual males, then we could say there were 540 new infections in heterosexual males in that year in Thailand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some of those "heterosexual" identified males could also be men who have sex with men, and injecting drug users.

Raw numbers when looking at transmission are only the beginning of tracing and identifying transmission. Raw data always needs to be further interrogated.

[cleopatra2]

15 hours ago, 2009 said:

 

 

Okay, let's look at an example.

 

If the prevalence rate in polygamous American heterosexual females is 1 in 1000. And transmission rate from female to male is 1 in 1000 per episode of sex. Then, the overall risk would be 1 in 1,000,000 for that single encounter.

 

If the prevalence rate was 1 in 100, say, for a homosexual American male. And the transmission rate from recieving anal was, say, 1 in 100. Then the overall risk would be 1 in 10,000 for that single encounter (to the receiving partner.)

 

The more times you do it the worse your odds are, obviously.

 

The part you are not getting is: these risk assessments are for when we don't know a person is negative.

 

So, the thing you said about, "No further number of encounters with negative people will affect that" .

 

You are right! Obviously, because we know their status is negative so they don't even come into the equation. You don't apply this equation to people who are known to be negative. The chances they have it is zero.

The prevalence rate  already factors in the exposure risk. 

As you are aware the prevalence rate estimates the number of HIV in a population. 

The HIV positive person must have been exposed and contracted the virus from such an exposure. 

 

The existing estimate of exposure in prevalence rate is not taken into account when you multiply the prevalence by exposure risk. 

Edited September 1, 2021 by cleopatra2

[scubascuba3]

38 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Some of those "heterosexual" identified males could also be men who have sex with men, and injecting drug users.

Raw numbers when looking at transmission are only the beginning of tracing and identifying transmission. Raw data always needs to be further interrogated.

Often guys who like ladyboys still think they are heterosexual, crazy I know

[2009]

46 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Some of those "heterosexual" identified males could also be men who have sex with men, and injecting drug users.

Raw numbers when looking at transmission are only the beginning of tracing and identifying transmission. Raw data always needs to be further interrogated.

In that case the heterosexual male percentage would be less than 10% (and the MSM and IDU groups would be higher).

 

I don't disagree with that; people do tell lies.

Edited September 1, 2021 by 2009

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, RJRS1301 said:

Some of those "heterosexual" identified males could also be men who have sex with men, and injecting drug users.

Raw numbers when looking at transmission are only the beginning of tracing and identifying transmission. Raw data always needs to be further interrogated.

There is no raw data. All conclusions on transmission rates are drawn from meta analysis. Each one with different methodologies and caveats. Rates vary widely depending upon various analysis factors. 

 

 

[2009]

53 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The prevalence rate  already factors in the exposure risk. 

As you are aware the prevalence rate estimates the number of HIV in a population. 

The HIV positive person must have been exposed and contracted the virus from such an exposure. 

 

The existing estimate of exposure in prevalence rate is not taken into account when you multiply the prevalence by exposure risk. 

 

 

53 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The prevalence rate  already factors in the exposure risk. 

No, it doesn't.

 

This is not my formula: it is used by HIV prevention experts (and that is documented in studies; there is no disagreement among the experts about this simple math or logic). Look it up, please.

 

The exposure risk matters because the more you have sex the higher your overall risk becomes, and the type of sex, and circumcision, etc. etc.

 

53 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The HIV positive person must have been exposed and contracted the virus from such an exposure. 

The exposure risk is about your exposure (which can vary depending on whether you are giving/recieving or if you are circumcised/uncircumcised), not their historical exposure.

 

The prevalence rate (e.g. 1 in 100) is used for people of unknown status.

 

If the person actually has it - and it is known for sure - then the prevalence rate doesn't apply to them (the figure would just be 1 because we know they actually have it).

 

Then, you would simply use the exposure rate, only, because you know you had sex with an infected person.

 

And the exposure rate would differ depending on the kind of sex you had with them (e.g. giving/recieving) and how many times.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by 2009

[Doctor Tom]

Interesting title to this post.  I would suggest that most initial HIV transmission comes from men giving it to women in the first place. 'Chickens coming home to roost' sounds about right. 

[2009]

9 minutes ago, Doctor Tom said:

Interesting title to this post.  I would suggest that most initial HIV transmission comes from men giving it to women in the first place. 'Chickens coming home to roost' sounds about right. 

Yes, women are twice as likely to get it due to being the receiving partner.

[RJRS1301]

39 minutes ago, 2009 said:

In that case the heterosexual male percentage would be less than 10% (and the MSM and IDU groups would be higher).

 

I don't disagree with that; people do tell lies.

Having done HIV tracing, and longitudinal research I can assure you raw data is just that raw data and requires further interrogation

[BobinBKK]

On 3/18/2021 at 7:30 AM, scubascuba3 said:

Both men and women are responsible for the transmission, I'm not sure why you say men are responsible?

Because that guy speaks without intelligence. These women are sex workers and it's their responsibility to get tested (for free might I add) on a regular basis. If they are HIV positive they should NOT be working in the sex industry, PERIOD!

 

However I agree 100% that the man should always wear a condom without question! The sex worker should also require the use of a condom not matter what!!!

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, BobinBKK said:

If they are HIV positive they should NOT be working in the sex industry, PERIOD

Please acquaint yourself with Viral Loads, antiretrovial therapies, CD4 counts

[BobinBKK]

3 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Please acquaint yourself with Viral Loads, antiretrovial therapies, CD4 counts

If you want to knowingly have sex with someone that is HIV positive, that's your business and extremely foolish. You are also putting everyone else at risk with your stupid behavior and line of thinking.

 

It's NOT my personal choice to knowingly have sex with someone that is HIV positive so I don't need to "acquaint" myself with a damn thing, period! So you need to back up the EF off me chief!!!

[RJRS1301]

1 minute ago, BobinBKK said:

If you want to knowingly have sex with someone that is HIV positive, that's your business and extremely foolish. You are also putting everyone else at risk with your stupid behavior and line of thinking.

 

It's NOT my personal choice to knowingly have sex with someone that is HIV positive so I don't need to "acquaint" myself with a damn thing, period! So you need to back up the EF off me chief!!!

You once again are displaying a total lack of knowledge about treatments, transmissions and risks. Read some longditudinal studies regarding treatments and antiretrovirals.  

Knowledge can be a friend where as lack of it is something often displayed in online forums

 

[2009]

14 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Please acquaint yourself with Viral Loads, antiretrovial therapies, CD4 counts

Exactly.

 

And there are sex acts that don't even transmit HIV.

[scubascuba3]

21 minutes ago, BobinBKK said:

Because that guy speaks without intelligence. These women are sex workers and it's their responsibility to get tested (for free might I add) on a regular basis. If they are HIV positive they should NOT be working in the sex industry, PERIOD!

 

However I agree 100% that the man should always wear a condom without question! The sex worker should also require the use of a condom not matter what!!!

Where can they get the test for free in Pattaya? maybe you should tell them

[2009]

11 minutes ago, BobinBKK said:

If you want to knowingly have sex with someone that is HIV positive, that's your business and extremely foolish. You are also putting everyone else at risk with your stupid behavior and line of thinking.

 

It's NOT my personal choice to knowingly have sex with someone that is HIV positive so I don't need to "acquaint" myself with a damn thing, period! So you need to back up the EF off me chief!!!

Looks like someone isn't capable of adult discussion.

 

I suggest you put your big boy pants on and stop being rude to other members.

[BobinBKK]

3 minutes ago, 2009 said:

Looks like someone isn't capable of adult discussion.

 

I suggest you put your big boy pants on and stop being rude to other members.

And who are you to do my thinking for me and/or tell me what to do? I didn't ask for your suggestion, did I? Your comment back to me is inflammatory!!!

[scubascuba3]

I just saw this on the Bangkok Red Cross website, higher HIV positives than i expected, over 5% of those tested

 

 

[mvdf]

On 3/18/2021 at 12:02 PM, brewsterbudgen said:

It's not only HIV; herpes, the new strain of anti-biotic resistant gonorrhea, clamydia - there are lots of STDs being passed around.

Oh that's just a yummy bowl of soup with all 'em goodies thrown in. Those strains are ever evolving:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/antibiotic-resistant-strain-of-gonorrhoea-detected-in-london

 

[Pravda]

On 9/1/2021 at 10:06 AM, RJRS1301 said:

Please acquaint yourself with Viral Loads, antiretrovial therapies, CD4 counts

 

What a nonsense post. We all know Thai prostitutes are extremely serious when it comes to their own and others health.

[sanuk711]

It wasn't that many years ago that Poi Pet (Cambo) was recognized as the 2nd highest Aids location in the world---(next to S.Africa)  We all had to go there every 90 days---(if you lived BKK or Pattaya- this was the easiest way to do your 90 days check) There was a constant stream of traffic into Aranya Phet (Thai side) and Poi Pet was packed with Farangs doing their 1-2 hour wander around before returning to Thailand  for another 90 days, Thais who came on coach trips for a day out at all the Casino's that are there,  and so many "Very Young"  Viet Girls (& Boys) for sale.

 

Had a great Market the Thai side --you could buy anything, often wonder what happened to that after the Gov scrapped the 90 days must leave the country rule.

 

REC poipet CLUB - Welcome to REC poipet CLUB offcial.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by sanuk711